Monday, February 12, 2018

Shameful Misrepresentations Of Sedevacantism


 The blog "Shameless Popery" is run by one Joe Heschmeyer, a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect. A friend of mine brought my attention to a post he had written on June 3, 2014 entitled, "Sedevacantism is Impossible: How We Can Know Francis is Pope." Mr. Heschmeyer, by all indications, is an intelligent and thoughtful man. However, reading this post had me shaking my head at how someone ostensibly knowledgeable could write a piece that is filled with blatant misrepresentations of sedevacantism. Are such people culpably ignorant, or just being deceitful? I don't mean to sound uncharitable, but these are really the only two options and I don't know which one is better to believe. I commit no fallacy of the "false dilemma" (i.e., something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation) because if anyone did honest research on the topic, they would have to know what sedevacantists (True Catholics) believe in regard to the state of the papacy. It is certainly not reflected in Mr. Heschmeyer's post. I will break down his attempt to salvage the "papacy" of Bergoglio, and demonstrate where he is wrong. Anyone wishing to read his post in its entirety may find it here: http://shamelesspopery.com/sedevacantism-is-impossible-how-we-can-know-francis-is-pope/.

First point of "Shameless Popery" (hereinafter "SP"): A Validly Elected Pope Isn't an Antipope. 

SP contends, "...my point is that even if radical Traditionalists were right about Pope Francis being a heretic, he wouldn’t cease to be pope."  Starting with this false principle, SP then goes into a discussion of the Great Western Schism when there were multiple papal claimants and ends by declaring, "The common thread in all of these cases is that it turns on whether a particular man was validly elected to the Chair of Peter. A man isn’t declared an antipope simply because you think he’s wrong, or that he’s doing a bad job."

This is wrong on several grounds:
  • A heretic is barred by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The pre-Vatican II canonists affirm that it is not canon law, but rather God's Law that prevents a heretic such as Bergoglio from obtaining the office of pope in the first place.
Proof: According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)


According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio was a heretic much prior to his alleged "election" in 2013. According to the Anti-Deformation League: "Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II." (See https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-congratulates-new-pope-francis; Emphasis mine).

"Cardinal" Bergoglio also participated in an ecumenical service wherein a Protestant minister "laid hands on him" as a religious action: "...then-Cardinal Bergoglio—metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires, primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina, and president of the Argentinian Bishops’ Conference—is kneeling, head bowed, between Father Raniero Cantalamessa and Catholic Charismatic leader Matteo Calisi, with Evangelical Pastor Carlos Mraida extending his hand toward the cardinal’s head, as the people invoke the Holy Spirit over him." (See http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/05/francis-ecumenism-and-the-common-witness-to-christ/; Emphasis mine).

Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Therefore, Traditionalists don't reject Bergoglio because he lost his office, but because he never could have obtained it in the first place! The Church does indeed teach loss of papal office through profession of heresy, but we need not even go down that path. Bergoglio was a heretic barred by Divine Law from ever becoming pope. Moreover, this is not a case of "Bergoglio acting badly," but one of a manifest heretic incapable of obtaining the office. The analogy to the Great Western Schism is therefore inapposite because none of the claimants were manifest heretics, so the only thing needed to do was try and determine which papal claimant had the valid election.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the decree of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void."


Second point of SP: Being a Heretic Doesn’t Make the Pope an Antipope

It sure does. As St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."( Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232). This was the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians and canonists before Vatican II.

SP then rehashes the cases of Pope John XXII and Pope Honorius to "prove" that a heretic can be pope. Before I quote what was written, I want to qualify exactly what is required regarding heresy and the loss of papal office. The theologians are clear that if the pope, as a private teacher, becomes a manifest (or notorious) and contumacious (willfully disobedient) heretic, he then immediately falls from office by Divine Law without any ecclesiastical declaration. See if you can spot the problem with what SP writes regarding Popes John XXII and Honorius:

...Pope John XXII (1316-1334), who had a series of sermons in which he denied that Saints enjoy the Beatific Vision prior the Final Judgment. At the time, this was not formal heresy, inasmuch as the doctrine was dogmatically defined only by John’s successor, Benedict XII, in 1336. Theologians corrected the pope’s error, and John had the humility to retract his views. Being wrong on this doctrinal issue didn’t mean that John ceased to be pope. He was just a pope in error. (When sedevacantists refer to “Saint Thomas Aquinas,” they unwittingly concede this, for it was Pope John XXII who canonized Aquinas; if John wasn’t pope, Aquinas isn’t canonized). (Emphasis mine)

Pope John XXII was not denying anything yet a dogma, nor was he contumacious. According to a readily available source (The Catholic Encyclopedia online), "In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision." He therefore was not a heretic as the question was open for discussion among the theologians, and even if, ad arguendo, he was--he still lacked the qualification of being contumacious as he never claimed to be definitively teaching anything, and declared himself open to correction by the Magisterium when he preached his sermons and wrote on the topic prior to his election to the papacy.

As to Pope Honorius:
The second is Pope Honorius (625-638), who has the ignoble distinction of being the only pope that’s anathematized. As pope, Honorius permitted the spread of the Monothelite heresy...And guess what? Honorius didn’t cease to be pope. Leo didn’t declare his predecessor an antipope, or nullify all of his papal decrees on the grounds that they weren’t issued by the real pope, etc.

Honorius wrote several letters relating to the Monothelite heresy (i.e.,Christ had only one will, the Divine Will), for which he was later accused, variously, of being a heretic himself or allowing heresy to go unchecked. According to theologian Hurter, "the letters of Honorius were unknown until the death of the Pontiff and Sergius" [a bishop]. (Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae, 360; words in brackets mine). Since the letters were not made public until after his death, even if they were heretical, he would have been an "occult" (i.e., "secret") heretic, lacking the qualification of being "manifest" necessary for loss of office.

Third Point of SP: This Heretical Antipope Theory is Logically Impossible

Here SP attempts to refute the position of another blogger [Skojec] on the possibility of a future Council or pope declaring Bergoglio an antipope. The point ends by stating, "In this vision of history, none of these men [Roncalli to Bergoglio] were really popes, and had no more authority to appoint Cardinals than do you or me. So if Skojec was right, we would not only be left without a pope, but without any way of ever having a pope. In that case, there’s no possible future pope or future College of Cardinals capable of declaring Vatican II a false Council, because there’s no possibility of a future pope or College of Cardinals at all. There’s simply no more Church."

Wrong. According to theologian Dorsch: "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, theologian Van Noort pondered it as late as 1956 (See Dogmatic Theology 2: 276).

 Theologian Cajetan wrote: "...by exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism."  (See De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Theologian Billot wrote: "When it would be necessary to  proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See De Ecclesia Christi).

Then again, we may be living in the end times when Christ will return. In any case, SP's contention is false.

Fourth Point of SP: Skojec’s [a blogger who's "flirting" with sedevacantism] Proposal Flirts with Heresy

SP quotes the Ecumenical Council of Constance which condemned heretic Jan Hus' proposition:
"20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it." This is correct--a wicked [morally corrupt] pope remains pope. No Traditionalist denies this fact. We are not talking about being evil, but being heretical. SP is talking about apples when we talk about oranges.

Fifth point of SP: If We Can’t Be Sure Who (If Anyone) is Pope, Catholicism is Chaos

"...[what] sedevacantists [teach] would mean that a validly-elected pope could, at any moment, teach heresy and secretly cease to be pope."  The Church teaches no such thing as demonstrated above. The heresy must be manifest and contumacious.

Conclusion
What I wrote in this week's post is not something new. The position of the Church on heresy and loss of (or inability to gain) office is very clear. I am certainly not the first or the only person to make these facts public. Since the late 1990s, sedevacantism has been more and more vocal as it gains more converts to True Catholicism. Can Joe Heschmeyer be oblivious to all this information? The only thing our opponents can do is repeat misrepresentations (or even lies) and hope the unsuspecting will believe it to be so. I'll pray for Joe Heschmeyer that "...you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (St. John 8:32).  

79 comments:

  1. You showed some of Francis' pre-"election" heresies. I would like to post some of his post-election heresies!

    As "Pope" of the Vatican II sect, Francis officially teaches that non-Christians can be saved without the Catholic faith.

    Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 254), Nov. 24, 2013: “Non-Christians [such as pagans and atheists], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God ”, and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs.”

    And then, of course, we have the famous and notorious "A Catholic God" does not exist quote:

    Antipope Francis, October 1, 2013: “And I believe in God. Not in a catholic God; a catholic God does not exist; God exists. And I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my master/teacher and pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?” Francis said in the interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.

    Also of note is the heresy of “the old covanent (Jews)” has never been revoked! This is the one statement of Francis which have made some (such as “Fr.” Kramer) denounce Bergoglio as an antipope.

    Antipope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium (# 247), Nov. 24, 2013: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked...”

    What is most strange, however, is that even though some in the Vatican II sect (i.e., those who think this sect is the true Church) denounce Bergoglio as an antipope for this previous statement, they apparently don't make the same judgment for the other Vatican II “popes”, such as John Paul II. John Paul II also officially taught that the Jewish covenant with God has never been revoked; yet people such as Kramer do not condemn him:

    Antipope John Paul II, New Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 121: “… for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”

    Benedict XVI is not much better!

    In section II, A, 5, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

    Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain...”

    In section II, A, 7, The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible states:

    “…to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions, that is, the full acceptance of what Judaism is, in particular, the authority of its writings and rabbinic traditions, which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”

    So, according to this Vatican book, Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish position that Jesus is not the Son of God and the prophesied Messiah is a possible one! The preface for this totally heretical book was written by none other than Joseph Ratzinger, the now Benedict XVI.

    This is antichrist!

    1 John 2:22: “… he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist…”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good examples of post-“election” heresy!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. There is simply not enough space on this blog or time for any one person to fully document all the instances of heresy that Bergolio has committed these last 5 sorrowful years.

      Delete
    3. So sad, yet so true Tom.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. I'm convinced the 'Catholics' who curse the sedevacantist opinion are either infiltrators or the Lord has blinded them to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may be correct. It’s harder and harder NOT to think that is the case after all this time, and all the evidence that has come forth since Vatican II.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. In my opinion it’s easier to convince non-Catholics Bergoglio is not the Pope than it is to convince Catholics. We live in a world where emotions are given primacy over the intellect.

      Delete
    3. Yes. Emotion and culpable ignorance rule the world. It’s a deadly combination. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...” Hosea 4:6

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  3. Hello, I'm interested in reading the whole quote by theologian Dorsch since there are lots of ellipses. Would you be able to post it? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've used this quote many times during my last four years of blogging. I originally was made aware of it by another sedevacantist. I purchased the book (very hard to find), and had help in translating the passage to make sure it was accurate. I wanted to make sure it said what the other sedevacantist apologist recorded (it did). I have the book somewhere in my finished basement/library of over 4,000 titles, but I cannot find it at this present moment. I will continue to search. I have found this from theologian O'Reilley in "The Relations of The Church to Society" (1882, 202, and it confirms what Dorsch taught:

      "We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; NOT THAT AN INTERREGNUM COVERING THE WHOLE PERIOD WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROMISES OF CHRIST, FOR THIS IS BY NO MEANS MANIFEST, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum." (Emphasis mine;original in English). I will continue to look for "Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis (de Ecclesia)" by theologian Dorsch in my spare time and translate the parts between the ellipses.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. It has been said by some anti-sedevacantists that the sedevacantist position is the easy way out. I would invite such a person to try it for a few months.

    The searing of the soul that necessarily occurs when even beginning to contemplate the position's ramifications is immense. The position is not for the effeminate, a trait I have detected in some who are opposed to sedevacantism. (Effeminate in the classical sense, as a vice opposed to the virtue of fortitude.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barbara,
      Your comment is not only well-written, but it also speaks to a truth that only those who have endured the hardships of standing for Christ’s One True Church could fully understand!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I am about to be expelled from the chapel of the San Pio X Fraternity I attend, being the only traditionalist chapel in my city and being one of the few sedevacantistas in it. If this is an easy life, I would like to have a glimpse of what a hard and difficult life is.

      What's more, I live in northern Brazil and all the sedevacantistas and chapels are concentrated in the south. Recalling that Brazil, like the United States, is a country of continental proportions. That is, I will have to live without sacraments, should this occur, depending on traveling once or twice a year to have the sacraments.

      Delete
    3. My Friend,
      Why are you being expelled? You said you were a sedevacantist? You’re in my prayers as always, especially this Lent.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  5. Rome's Pope could be heretic and was heretic same as other bishops or patriarchs were.
    Nobody believed, even Rome's Popes till the end of first millennium, that there is some man who is infallible and vicar of Christ on Earth.
    If that was case, there would not be first Council in Jerusalem, Church would only ask st.Peter what is the truth, should non jewish christians became first jew and then became christians.
    Even st.Peter was wrong and st.Paul rebuke him in face.
    Why did emperor Constantine convened Council in Nicea, he should only ask pope Silvester what is dogma and what is Credo?
    And what about third Council in Constantinople where pope Honorious was condemned as heretic, and succeeding popes from Rome for century anathematized pope Honorius during papal's oath?
    Investigate first millennium and you will find out the truth regarding Church and so called infallible vicar of Christ on Earth.
    By the way, I was sedevacantist, and before that member of Novus Ordoe Sect from baptism as child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m sorry you apostatized into the Eastern Schismatics. You gave up the Vatican II sect for the truth, only to forsake the truth for another lie. I will be glad to address your concerns briefly, later today when I have time,
      And perhaps devote an entire post to the topic.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. PART 4

      MORE QUOTES ON THE SAME SUBJECT

      Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431):

      "Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, AND THAT TO HIM WAS GIVEN THE POWER OF LOOSING AND BINDING... Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...."

      St. Augustine (A.D. 400):

      "To be unwilling to give the primacy to the Roman Church either stems from the utmost impiety or from rash arrogance." (Augustine. De Util. Cred. c.17). "The Roman Church, in which the primacy of the Apostolic See has always been in force" (Augustine. Epist. Xlii). "Peter...head of the Apostles, doorkeeper of heaven and foundation of the church." (Augustine. Ep 36). "This same Peter...bearing the figure of the Church...holding the chief place in the Apostleship..." (Augustine. Sermon XXVI)

      Pope St. Gregory the Great (A.D. 540-604):

      "...I swear, upon pain of the loss of my order, and under the bond of anathema, and promise to thee, and through thee to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and to his vicar, the most blessed Gregory or his successors, that I will never, through anyone's persuasion or in any other way, return to schism, from which I have been delivered through the mercy of the Redeemer, but shall always remain, through all things, in the unity of the Holy Catholic Church and the communion of the Roman Pontiff." (Register of Epistles, Book XII, Ep.7)

      Valentinian III, Roman Emperor (A.D. 445):

      "The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler."

      Pope Hormisdas (A.D. 519):

      "[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'...These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain."

      St. Prosper of Acquitaine (A.D. 450):

      "Rome the See of Peter, which has been made to the whole world the head of the pastoral office."

      Pope Leo The Great [A.D. 440-461]:

      "Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world."

      Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451):

      "Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church..."

      Additional quotes from St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430):

      "There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5, A.D. 397)

      "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock against whom the gates of hell do not prevail." (Augustine. Psalmus contr. Partem Donati, str. 18)

      Delete
    3. All those who do not adopt a sedevacantist position must by necessity adopt an heretical position to justify what has happened since V2. Emil here has rejected the Church's dogmatic teaching on infaillibilty. Resisters reject the dogmatic teachings of many Popes which are also summed up in Pastor Aeternus. They reject their obligation to assent to the magesterium, claiming the "errors" of V2 are not binding. The worst that could be said of sedevacantists is that we cannot explain the visibilty issue adequately. Sedevacantism doesn't fully explain our current dilemna but it holds much more water than anything else out there and it does so without having to adopt a heresy. Take a look at any anti sede argument out there and you will always find anti-Catholic interpretations of historical events. They find every criticism that protestants and schismatics hurled at the Church and rehash them. Emil does it here with the Honorius affair. He immediately adopts the anti Catholic screed on the affair without checking out the Catholic and correct version of history. It is all so predictible. The insult they hurl at us of being "Ultramonatists" is another perfect example. Of course we are Ultramonatists! Thats what the Church teaches for cryin out loud!

      Delete
    4. Tom,
      As you can see, Emil didn’t read (or didn’t understand) what I wrote concerning Honorius. Many who oppose us have their minds made up and ignore the facts, or twist them to make them fit the preconceived ideas they hold.

      The rejection of the Sedevacantist position does lead to errors and heresy. Thanks as always for your insight Tom!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. PART 1

    EASTERN ORTHODOXY IS ILLOGICAL

    Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17). St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church. This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16). All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn't be true popes, but (logically) antipopes. This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.

    I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages. This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent. (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils' teaching.)

    ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN "ORTHODOXY"

    On the other hand, Eastern "Orthodoxy," since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical. Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). "Eastern Orthodoxy" would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II! But if we apply the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy," the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops. Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it's a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical! Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

    Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787? Doesn't it strike as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern "Orthodox" arbitrarily reject as "not accepted by the Church," even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence's teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could one logically say that Florence was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were? What are the criteria? I've asked many Eastern "Orthodox" this very question and received no answer simply because they have none. Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

    ReplyDelete
  7. PART 2

    Yes, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as one will see if one honestly and deeply think about it. In Eastern Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite. If the "Church" spoke at Constantinople I because 150 bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the "Church" spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops! It is inescapable, therefore, that according to the Eastern "Orthodox" position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils. This contradicts the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail and that God would be with His Church always (Mt. 16). Eastern "Orthodoxy" is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all. That's why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith. Because of the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy does not – and cannot – really believe in any dogmatic councils (as shown above) is why it's so appealing to so many: it's provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.

    Matthew 16:17-18-"And I say to thee: That thou are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

    Our Lord made St. Peter the first Pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the Universal Church of Christ.

    John 21:15-17-"Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

    ReplyDelete
  8. PART 3

    The Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church
    Aside from the Biblical origin of the papacy, we have also the testimony of the Early Christian Fathers. These earliest and most prominent writers of the Christian Church are called the Fathers of the Church and are recognized as such by Catholics, 'Orthodox' and Protestants alike. The very earliest of these Fathers of the Church are called the Apostolic Fathers because of their close connection to the Apostles. Among the Apostolic Fathers, St. Ignatius holds a prominent place. He lived from approximately AD 50-117. He was third bishop of Antioch and was taught by the Apostle St. John. He also died heroically as a martyr. The epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch are a staple in every collection of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. He repeatedly speaks of the authority and the role of bishops in the Church. This shows us that from the very earliest ages, that there is no doubt the Church of Christ had a hierarchy. St. Ignatius is also the first recorded writer to use the term "Catholic Church".

    Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2 (AD 107): "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be present, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

    In Greek the word Catholic (katholikos) means universal. The Catholic Church is the universal Christian, the one universal Church of Christ that was established upon St. Peter. It is interesting that the first recorded author to use the term Catholic Church was St. Ignatius of Antioch. Acts 11:26 Also tells us that the term Christians was also first used at Antioch. Catholics and Christians are one and the same thing because the Catholic Church is the Christian Church.

    St. Ignatius also had something interesting to say about St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans written approximately AD 110:

    "I do not order you as did Peter and Paul,"

    We'll come back to St. Ignatius, but here are some other citations from the Fathers of the Church which show that St. Peter, the head of the Christian Church, died in Rome as its first bishop.

    Tertullian, The Prescription against the heretics:

    "Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's!"

    Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232):

    "Peter... at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."

    St. Cyprian, the famous bishop of Carthage wrote concerning the Bishop of Rome Fabian (Ep. Lv, 24):

    "by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the vote of the people then present, by the consent of aged priests and of good men, at a time when no one had been made before him, when the place of Fabian, that is the place of Peter, and the step of the sacerdotal chair were vacant".

    St. Optatus, who was the chief opponent of the Donatist heresy in the fourth century and the Bishop of Milevis wrote in the schism of the Donatists 22, in AD 367:

    "You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome upon Peter first the chair of the bishop was conferred, in which sat the head of all the Apostles, Peter, whence also he was called Cephas, in which one chair unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles should each stand up for his own chair, so that now he should be a schismatic and a sinner who should against this one chair set up another. Therefore in the one chair, which is the first of the dotes Peter first sat, to whom succeeded Linus."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jerome,
      Thank you for this refutation of the Eastern Schismatics! You saved me a lot of work!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. That information refuting the Eastern 'Orthodox' has been taken from the material and website of Most Holy Family Monastery: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/refuting-eastern-orthodox/

      That's where it came from.

      Delete
    3. Ok. Jerome didn’t state his source. Even a broken clock like MHFM is right twice a day, even if wrong the rest of the time!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  9. The Maurice pinky blog and twitter feed as well as the call me Jorge blog and twitter feed have done an excellent job of posting historical articles of the admixture of Jewish Kabbalism and I think Talmudic ideas with “Eastern Orthodox theology” since it’s inception historically. This is a truth that hasn’t been known to many westerners until relatively recently. Eastern Orthodoxy is from Hell.

    Jesus and Mary,
    David

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies
    1. I wasn’t aware of Talmudic influence. You’ve given me something to research!

      As always, thank you for the great information, David!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. So the infallible pope of Rome failed to safeguard the Church from Talmudic influence from its inception. Wasn't the Romish Pope supposedly the guardian of the faith for the whole Church including the East? Since this alleged Talmudic influence happened with so-called infallible Vicars of Christ on duty then I'd say they are responsible for it.

      By the way, if you are going to try and refute Orthodox Christianity, copying and pasting the Diamond brothers as your defense is a good way to prove you're an idiot who is incapable of doing any real research. Lastly, proof-texting means very little. Any Orthodox Christian could do that and disprove the papacy. Actually, you disprove the papacy since you are a schismatic Sedevacantist.

      Delete
    3. It seems like you’re addressing several people.
      1. The pope cannot safeguard a false sect (EO) from ITS flaws. Your objection is nonsensical.

      2. I don’t know where Jerome got his information. My readers know I put a lot of time and research into my posts and give proper attribution to my sources. As much as I dislike the Dimonds, they are correct on certain topics, such as the state of Sedevacantism. When they are wrong, I prove it. Even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hrs. and to dismiss what is written simply by its source alone is to commit the “genetic fallacy” in logic.

      3. Sedevacantism is not schismatic. If the See Of Peter is vacant, there is no pope to whom submission is denied. As theologian Szal teaches,
      “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if ONE REFUSES OBEDIENCE INASMUCH AS ONE SUSPECTS THE PERSON OF THE POPE OR THE VALIDITY OF HIS ELECTION, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (See “The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics” CUA Press [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).

      You don’t know the proper definition of a schismatic yet it seems you want to pontificate to others (pun intended much akin to your ignorance).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  11. As I wrote, I was till recently sedevacantist.
    And if that position is true, then Church lost Her visibility, since there is no pope who has power and authority not only to approve all bishops, but to put them on bishop's chairs, i.e. if st.Peter chair is empty, then all chairs are empty and Church exists without hierarchy.
    Yes, you can say I have bishop from CMRI, or some independent bishop, but actually they are bishops without chair, they are not real bishops.
    How can you deny that st.Peter was wrong on issue about Mosaic low and st.Paul rebuke him in face?
    And if st.Peter was not infallible, how can any bishop from Rome or Antioch, which was Peter's first chair, be infallible?
    And you interpret wrong primacy in honour which had patriarch from Rome, it is same primacy as had st.Peter before other apostles, but he was not super apostle who can not err, because he had error as I wrote.
    I thought as sedevacantist, there should be soon the end of world, i.e. second coming of our Lord, because how can the Church survive so long without infallible 'Vicar of Christ on Earth', because that is duty of the Pope, to represent and govern the Church in the name of Christ.
    If there is no vicar, then the King should be in person to govern the Church.
    So my question is - will you say after half century same answer as now, the Church lives without Her infallible head, and we live in epikeia situation till the end of world?
    And what you say about big bronze door at basilica of st.Peter in Vatican which has pagan deities and was put there by famous pope who wrote "Cantate Domino" pope Eugen IV?
    What about other desacralisation there, pictures and sculptures of naked bodies and pagan deities which are put in the same time of renaissance and late middle age on many churches and are there today?
    How can infallible 'Vicar of Christ' do that and tolerate desacralisation?
    How can infallible bishop delay his papal coronation because horoscope was not good?
    How can infallible bishop had astrologers in his court?
    How can he legalised usury?
    I tell you how.
    The same way as Bergoglio 'legalised' fornication and adultery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As was proven by the Great Western Schism, we couldn’t be sure who, if anyone, was pope, and who were the bishops with jurisdiction. This, as theologians Dorsch and O’Reilley explain, does not mean the Church is invisible but merely is in an incomplete state.

      As to St Paul rebuking St Peter, as theologian Ott teaches, “Paul censured the inconsistent attitude of Peter, because, precisely on account of the latter’s high authority in the Church, it endangered the freedom from the Old Law enjoyed by Christians who were converted from paganism. Peter well knew and recognized this freedom.” (See “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” (1954), pg 282.)

      The pope can make mistakes in judgement such as whom to appoint as bishop or cardinal. It was in this sense he “resisted him to the Faith.”

      You lost your faith for lack of understanding. The other parts of your comments make no sense, sounding like something Richard Ibranyi would say. The use of art has to be understood in context. Moses was given “devil horns” on his head to represent his communication with God. It did not have the same connotation. There are images of Satan as a snake under the Blessed Mother’s feet. That hardly makes him “worshipped.”

      Read the theologians and Church history and maybe you’ll recover your faith. I’ll be praying for your conversion Emil and I ask my readers to do the same.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. I have encountered several Eastern Orthodox via the Internet who prey on Sedevacatists and try to lure them into Eastern Orthodoxy. Some have been very sneaky in their approach and won’t identify that they are Eastern Orthodox until they have had a lengthy discourse regarding Sedevacatism with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’ve met a couple of those Joann. Traditionalists must be VERY wary these days. Satan will do all he can to take us outside the One True Church where there is no salvation.

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. JoAnn, I am Orthodox and I have no intentions to "lure" you or anyone else into Orthodox Christianity. My approach is to present information and let the truth work in their hearts which are often hardened. I am also not sneaky about my Orthodoxy, especially when talking to a Sedevacantist. I try and help them see what is right in front of their noses. Now if you are finding fault with Orthodox Christians for taking a different approach that you find offensive then it might be good for you to know that they are only trying to be helpful in the way that will not get a door slammed in their faces in the very beginning. It is my hope that you and all traditionalist Catholics will convert to Orthodox Christianity because that is the true faith of the Church. May the Holy Ghost open your heart and your eyes soon. God Bless.

      Delete
    3. Boloney. This is the first time an EO has openly identified as such on this post—even Emil didn’t use the title. If “the true faith of the Church” is EO, why do they belong to the World Council of Churches and hold ecumenical events with Anglicans and other false sects? If they’re all more or less good, why bother? It is we who proudly proclaim, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.”

      We have a reason to convert others—EOs do not.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. Alexander Dugin has helped unleash a massive chaotic program to destroy the West.
      The alt-right and
      Eastern Orthodoxy are part and parcel to his destruction of the West,including the traditional Catholic remnant.

      Delete
    5. Yes, the alt-right and EO are poison to Traditionalists.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. Yeah sure Eastern Orthodoxy is part of the destruction of the West. Dude you're an idiot. Eastern Orthodoxy is saving the West especially after Vatican II. Are you blind? Where do you think all of the real Christians are going? Not to the Sedevacantist sects lol. The Church of Rome unleashed a massive chaotic program to destroy the West. Instead of crying about it and blaming false enemies you could help the restoration of the Christian West by getting out of your ridiculous schismatic popeless sect and joining the Orthodox Church.

      Delete
    7. Wow dude, barf me out with that comment! We are the Remnant Church not a bunch of grody bearded heretics/Schismatics. Hopefully they express themselves better than you. Read some bodacious theologians!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. The alt-right and Eastern Orthodoxy are communism by the back door.
      You need to do some research and learn as fast as possible.
      The true faith is the Traditional Catholic remnant.
      Personally I look for some Eastern Catholics to join traditional Catholics holding the sedevacantist opinion in the near future.

      Delete
    9. Have you read Michael Hoffman's books "The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome" or "Usury in Christendom: the Mortal Sin that was but now is Not"?

      Delete
    10. Yes, I have read Hoffman’s half-baked, conspiratorial nonsense. On my post of May 4, 2015, Michael Hoffman posted a comment the next day. I reproduce it here to show his ignorance of Catholicism:
      Hoffman “Thomas More did not die for the Mass. Henry VIII did not alter or obstruct the traditional Latin Mass. Henry VIII attended Mass daily and sometimes three times a day. More died because he objected to Henry becoming the head of the Church in England. The Mass had nothing to do with it. As long as Henry VIII lived the traditional Mass in England was safe; only after his demise did it begin to be changed and then proscribed. King Henry was certainly a tyrant but not with regard to the Mass.”

      My response below

      Delete
    11. Sorry to disagree with you Mr. Hoffman. Traditional Catholic theology comes into play. In order to be VALID, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass must be offered by a properly trained and validly ordained priest who uses the correct matter and form while having the intention to do what the Church does. This will infallibly confect the Holy Eucharist which will present through time and space the Sacrifice of Calvary, only in an unbloody manner. The priest is acting "in persona Christi" or "in the Person of Christ."

      However, to be EFFICACIOUS, the priest must offer the Mass "in persona Ecclesiae" or "in the Person of the Church." The priest must be in union with the papacy and not a known heretic or schismatic. Otherwise the Mass does nothing to advance your salvation. That is why you cannot attend the Mass of a valid priest, ordained by Apb. Lefebvre in the Traditional Rite, who belongs to the Society of St Peter. Using the 1962 Missal, his Mass is valid but he is in formal union with false pope Francis and the heresies of Vatican II. This Mass is not pleasing to God, it is offered outside the True Church and no Traditionalist can attend without committing mortal sin against the First Commandment.
      Henry VIII, attended several valid yet illicit Masses cut off from the Church each day. Each one was another sin on his soul. With every Communion he would, in the words of St Paul "eat and drink damnation" unto himself (See 1Cor. 11:29) for Henry did not discern the Body and Blood of The Lord within the True Church, but communicated unworthily.
      Ergo, he did change the Mass by cutting it off from the Church, and St. Thomas More died for the Mass--the Integral Mass of Christ's One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved.
      ---Introibo

      P.S. The EO Liturgy is without efficacy for the same reason. —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. Interesting Introibo, how would you characterize the Masses said in union with the anti-popes during the Western Schism? Where they efficacious? Surely it wasnt a mortal sin for those who were confused? I also wonder how many SSPX priests leave out Francis' name in the Canon.

      Delete
    13. Tom,
      According to Theologian Szal, there must be an intent to separate oneself from the See of Peter to be schismatic. This is obviously lacking in SSPX and those who were confused during the Great Western Schism has no such intent. The SSPX keeps the name of Bergoglio because they are afraid of being schismatic NOT to do so!

      Also, they hold the Integral Catholic Faith, rejecting the Heresies of V2. Confused theology to be sure, but not something which would rob them of efficacy because there is no heresy nor desire to be schismatic. The same cannot be said of the EO.

      God Bless,
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    14. Speaking of Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholics...
      Since Archbishop Thuc's main consecrating Bishop was from an Eastern line of Bishops,could a valid unquestionable Thuc line Bishop ordain and consecrate clerics using the traditional Eastern rite of Holy Orders?

      Delete
    15. I just read the original post and comments between you and Mr. Hoffman. What he wrote is true. you just read into because you're a quarrelsome person. It appears to me that he was simply saying the Mass was not the issue because it wasn't changed (i.e., such as a Novus Ordo Mass). Schism was the issue and that was Hoffman's point. Typically, your response was insulting, arrogant, verbose, and pretty much irrelevant. No wonder he didn't reply.

      Delete
    16. Anon @ 8:54, Since Thuc was of the Latin Rite, I don't see how (or why) his lineage should use any other rite. EPIKEIA would not apply. It COULD be used validly, provided the bishop knows the language and rubrics of that Eastern Rite well enough--but I would consider it illicit without a dispensation, which cannot be had in these times.

      Anon @ 9:37: I understood what he wrote, but you didn't understand me. I'm not being quarrelsome, when I correct a glaring error. Hoffman's contention that "As long as Henry VIII lived the traditional Mass in England was safe" is demonstrably false. It was changed, as the name of the pope had to be removed and it was offered with the external intent of separation with the pope.

      Explaining that is not insulting, arrogant, or irrelevant. it wasn't prolix unless you have ADHD and can't concentrate for more than a few seconds. He didn't respond because (a) what I said was true and (b) at the risk of sounding insulting, he had to come up with another crackpot conspiracy theory.

      Sometimes with anti-Catholics posing as faithful ones, it's hard to speak the truth without sounding uncharitable.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    17. Introibo, you said one shouldnt attend an FSSP Mass said by an ex SSPXer because he is in formal union with a false Pope. But is not the SSPX in informal union with a false Pope?

      Delete
    18. Tom,
      I do not recommend SSPX Masses when Sedevacantist Masses are available. However, there is no such thing as “informal union.” You are either under Bergoglio’s “jurisdiction” or you are not. For now, the SSPX is not, and they reject the errors of V2. Should Bp. Fellay apostasize and join with Bergoglio, SSPX becomes part of the V2 sect and is off limits!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  13. Yes I have run across these EOs on other sites. They first agree with the sede of the sordid state of affairs in the NO sect. No argument there, but then they start mentioning some pre v2 decisions and statemtents from various Popes in order to paint a picture of faillibility. Of course all their examples are simply either papal poor judgments on ecclesial matters or out right fallicies rehased from protestant sources.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Question was if Orthodoxy is true faith i.e.Church, why they belong to masonic the World Council of Churches?
    First, I do not even have contact to any orthodox bishop or priest. Only recently I realised that there is no truth in Roman papacy, his infallibility and his universal jurisdiction as so called Vicar of Christ on Earth.
    And answer is - patriarch from Constantinople, or any other patriarch or orthodox bishop is no the Pope of Orthodoxy.
    So yes, I believe that patriarch from Constantinople is heretic, and all bishops and priests who took part in masonic meeting in Asisi with Roman pope John Paul II, protestant heretics, muhammedans, and all pagan cults.
    The same is for all who belong to the World Council of Churches.
    That is differnce between Orthodoxy and Roman catholicism where if Roman bishop becomes heretic all bishops follow him because he is 'infallible' and 'Vicar of Christ on Earth' who has all jurisdiction on every man who wants to be saved (dogmatic bull "Unam Sanctam" of Roman pope Boniface VIII).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I’ve demonstrated your “realization” there’s no pope is based on a flawed understanding of Catholic theology. EO has Talmudic elements as one of my readers pointed out. That makes them ALL heretics.

      I’m praying for your conversion. Learn theology and Church history.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Emil, infaillibility is absolutely needed and has been a part of deposit of faith from the begining. Our Lord gave the charism to Peter. Without it, we as Catholics 2000 years later could trust none if what we are taught. The contradictions introduced at V2 are only brought to the attention of the faithful because of the dogmatic teaching on infaillibility. Without it, the entire Church would have had no recourse but submission to the new man centered V2 cult. Because the faithful accepted infaillibility, they, albeit few, were able to recognize the apostasy of the hierarchy and avoid their own fall into heresy and apostasy. Infaillibilty is a lynchpin of the faith. Without it, the whole faith falls apart. For this reason, the enemies of the Church are constantly trying to chip away and redefine infaillibilty to suit their protestant, EO, or resister goals.

      Delete
    3. Tom, I investigate pretty much as sedevacantist question from when started apostasy in Rome.
      My last conclusion was - from pope Leon XIII who promote masonic idea from st.Peter Chair that all men are God's children.
      And that denies meaning of baptism and the Church. Popes after him repeat the same heresy. It is written on my blog if you can read or translate Croatian.
      But that is not all, because popes from late middle age and renaissance put pagan deities in catholic churches, legalised usury and so on.

      Delete
    4. You’re taking his quote out of context just like Richard Ibranyi. Read my post “The Source Of The Problem”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. Emil, what you call heresy is poor judgment. The entire history of the Catholic Church is replete with bad decisions by many many Popes. They should not be confused with contradictions of the sort that took place at Vatican2. You are simply aping the many papal detractors over the centuries who have tried to damage the Church. No one is going to argue with any of the examples you put forth. My point is that none of them destroy the integrity of the Magesterium. They may confuse and cause scandal. Not until Vatican 2 do we actually see a complete reversal and an introduction of a new religion.

      Delete
    6. Tom, believing and promoting idea that all men are God's children is not wrong judgement.
      We can say that pope Pius XI had wrong judgement delivering cristeros to masonic Mexican goverment, but believing in the masonic lie that all humanity is God's children is blatant heresy and denial of sacrament of baptism.

      Delete
    7. Please cite the quotation from Pope Leo and I’ll tell you why EO and Vacancy Pushers are wrong.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Introibo - Please straighten me out if need be, but I thought to be a child of God one needed to be in the state of grace?? Also, could you provide me the link or where I can obtain the information regarding the Eastern Orthodox and Talmudic elements. I have a relative who left the NO and got married in the EO. Thanks!!

      Delete
    9. Joann,
      there's an old saying, "A proof-text without context is a pretext." EO and Vacancy Pushers will twist a obscure quote out of context to "prove" heresy. You are correct that to be a child of God in the strict theological sense, one must be a member of the Church in the state of sanctifying grace. However, it can be used in a loose or imprecise manner to convey "All humans are made in God’s image, and Christ’s grace is available to all." As a matter of fact all people can be said to be "children of God" insofar as we are (1) all created for the same Last End, (2) we all have Christ as the Divine Victim for our sins, and (3) we all have the chance to join the True Church and be saved.

      The EO hold the Talmudic view that all can be saved as they are even rejecting Christ (not BOD--salvation apart from any particular religion). This is reflected even today by such as Prof. John N. Karmiris of Athens U. For his theological universalism, see
      https://www.goarch.org/-/an-orthodox-christian-view-of-non-christian-religions.

      Hope this helped Joann! I'll dig deeper if you want more information.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. Thanks Introbio! What I have read so far on the link provided sounds like something Fake Francis would spout. I know a lot of people in the Novus Ordo that believe in universal salvation as everything is relative these days in the great apostasy.

      Delete
    11. Since the EO believe in universal salvation why are they trying so hard to convert others to Eastern Orthodoxy?? Seems they are not practicing what they preach.

      Delete
  15. And if you know Croatian, then you can check my blog that I am not Orthodox who is pretending to be
    sedevacantist before conversion.
    http://krugzemaljski.blogspot.hr/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell me which catholic-orthodox dogma I reject which was established and confirmed in the first millennium?
      Did I apostatized from Credo and believing in the Holy Trinity and one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church?
      Who pronounce dogma that if you are not under authority of Roman bishop then you are heretic and schismatic?
      I know, pope Boniface in middle age, but there is no new revelation and growing understanding of revelation, you should know it is heresy of modernism.

      Delete
    2. 1. How about the Filioque for starters?

      2. Modernism teaches a heretical development of dogma. That dogmas that were implicit can be made explicit and made more clear has always been Catholic teaching—which you do NOT understand.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Yes, filioque is great example for western new theology without roots in Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
      Do you know that till 9th century filioque wasn't recite in Credo in Rome?

      Delete
    4. It was believed from the beginning. The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium teaches us apart from the Extraordinary Magisterium such as Ecumenical Councils.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. That's a lie. The filioque was not believed from the beginning. If it were it would be in the Creed. The fact that it is not in the Creed should end the discussion. In fact it wasn't even believed by popes as late as the 9th Century and was only finally officially adopted in 1014. Consequently, Rome falls under a previous council's anathema for doing so.

      What is most important is that the Creed was established by the Fathers of the Church who understood that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), and that the filioque would confound the persons and properties of the Holy Trinity. Sorry but Roman Catholics have the doctrine wrong and it has led to other theological problems later.

      Additionally, since you are a sedevacantist then there is no other word except hypocrisy to describe a Sedevacantist's acceptance that the Roman Pope had the authority to essentially change the faith but not the Mass (or anything else they object to) from Vatican II.

      Delete
    6. You're wrong on both counts.

      1. Yes, the Filioque clause wasn't inserted into the Roman Liturgy until 1014 by Pope Benedict VIII. However, it had been adopted by Churches in the West (Spain, France, Germany, and England)since the 5th century in opposition to the Arian and Adoptionist heresies which denied the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost. They were simply bringing out a truth already believed. St. Maximus the Confessor, one of the greatest Greek Doctors, clearly believed the Holy Ghost proceeded ineffably from the Father "dia mesou tuo Logou"---"by means of the Word"---that is through the Son.

      In the 9th century, Pope Leo III professed, "The Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son."

      2. St. John 15:26 clearly tells us the Holy Ghost is sent by the by the Son--"But when the Paraclete is come Whom I will send you from the Father..." If the Holy Ghost didn't proceed from the Son as well as the Father, He couldn't have sent Him. It would then read, "The Father will send to you..." (See theologian Haydock, "The Douay-Rheims New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with a comprehensive Catholic Commentary" [1859; reprinted 1991], pg. 1423)

      3. Since there was no essential change to the Faith, your charge of hypocrisy in regards to rejection of Vatican II is without merit.

      For a good discussion of this issue, please See theologian Dalmau, "Sacrae Theologiae Summa" IIA:243-394.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. No I'm not wrong on both accounts. It is true that a movement in Spain was zealous in its campaign to counter heresy but they ended up spouting another heresy as an unintended consequence. Their intentions were good but they were wrong. Rome in her arrogance then used the error later to deepen the divide between Churches. It was the pretext to claim superiority and subject the East.

      The Douay-Rheims commentary is wrong. The Sacred Scriptures do NOT read that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son. You will admit that. The Son "sending" the Spirit in time has nothing to do with procession. Procession has to do with cause and there is only One in the Holy Trinity. If the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son then you have divided the first principle and consequently subordinated the Third Person. Two totally different understandings that Western Christians have never understood correctly. Orthodox Christianity holds the correct faith.

      Yes of course there was substantial change to the faith and it caused a major schism. Besides, even if Rome didn't change the faith (which they did) they still added to the Creed and that by itself falls under the anathema of the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus AD 431 which forbade any alterations to the Creed (additions or subtractions).

      Lastly, my accusation of hypocrisy is accurate. The indisputable fact is Rome violated a canon. If the Vatican ii Church did that you would be all over it for heresy. If Rome can change the faith she can also give a novus ordo missae.

      Delete
    8. Sorry, but you EO would conveniently like us to forget that the decree of Ephesus only forbade HERRTICAL tampering with the original creed of the Council of Nicea. 56 yrs later, the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople would add many clauses expanding the original creed including the clauses stating the Holy Ghost “proceeded from the Father” and “I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.” Thus the prohibition of Ephesus and later councils could not be considered an absolute ban on doctrinal clarifications considered necessary to combat serious errors spreading in the Church. You’re wrong as a matter of historical fact.

      If you can’t even get that right, your other objections fail miserably as well. The Church and her approved theologians interpret the Bible.

      Your “fact” of Christ’s One True Church “violating a Canon” is sheer nonsense as has been demonstrated. Maybe you should join the bearded Schismatic/heretics at the World Council of Churches or praying together with Bergoglio. Oh, yes, I forgot. Those bearded guys are wrong and you get to choose which ones to follow as no one is infallible. It’s basically Protestantism with incense.

      For EO—“Orthodox” will only be a noun and never an adjective.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  16. Question was when and where did Roman Pope Leon XIII wrote all men are God's children.
    Auspicato Consessum 1882:
    "13. Therefore has he deserved well of that brotherhood established and perfected by Jesus Christ, which has made of all mankind one only family, under the authority of God, the common Father of all."

    In similar way in Humanum Genus 1884:
    "Amongst the many benefits to be expected from it will be the great benefit of drawing the minds of men to liberty, fraternity, and equality of right; not such as the Freemasons absurdly imagine, but such as Jesus Christ obtained for the human race and St. Francis aspired to: the liberty,We mean, of sons of God, through which we may be free from slavery to Satan or to our passions, both of them most wicked masters; the fraternity whose origin is in God, the common Creator and Father of all; the equality which, founded on justice and charity, does not take away all distinctions among men, but, out of the varieties of life, of duties, and of pursuits, forms that union and that harmony which naturally tend to the benefit and dignity of society."

    Roman Pope Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique from 1910.
    "Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself."

    That is enough because I can recite more, especially from popes after V2.

    So, as from Pope Leon XIII Roman Catholic Church teach heresy that all men are God's children.
    http://krugzemaljski.blogspot.hr/2017/09/alta-vendita-u-vatikanu.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pope Leo wrote that encyclical about St Francis of Assisi. Note well he never says all men are children of God, but rather God is the Common Creator and Father of all. As I responded to Joann above, this is used in common parlance to mean "All humans are made in God’s image, and Christ’s grace is available to all." As a matter of fact all people can be said to be "children of God" insofar as we are (1) all created for the same Last End, (2) we all have Christ as the Divine Victim for our sins, and (3) we all have the chance to join the True Church and be saved.

      There’s no heresy; only your theological ignorance. I’m praying for you.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Yes, he wrote all men are God's children, because he wrote:
      "the common Father of all" and it is the same meaning.
      Are you maybe some kind of lawyer to play with words? :)

      Delete
    3. Guilty as charged for being a lawyer. That’s why I understand the necessity of proper interpretation. The “common Father of all” by Creation not by grace. Protestants do the same with Scripture—twist it to their liking.

      —-Introibo

      Delete